Future Hospital – Access Route To Overdale (S.R.2/2021): Response of the Chief Minister

Findings

Comments

1

The Panel is concerned that option 6, "do  nothing"  option  scored  only marginally  lower  than  option  7 "preferred access route" when meeting the set criteria.

Option 6 scored six red (negative) rated criteria whereas Option 7 had just two. This can be seen in the table on page no.100 of Appendix A to Appendix  1  of  the  report  accompanying P.167/2020.   Therefore,  Option  7  performs considerably better than Option 6.

Option 6 in isolation does not work. However, at every step of developing a design for a new road layout, we will consider whether the do nothing'

option could be appropriate, as some sections of the road may not need to be altered.

2

The Panel is concerned the road may be widened unnecessarily for construction access primarily rather than emergency services.

This is not correct. The road will be widened to ensure that there is sustainable and safe access for patients, visitors, staff and blue light services, as well as to accommodate an active travel corridor required  in  accordance  with  the  Assembly approval of P.167/2020.

3

There is no detailed design to show how the proposed roadworks will look, the impact on the surrounding area and any loss of green space.

It would have been inappropriate to prepare a detailed design for a single option, such as Option 7, and present greater detail than other options prior  to  approval  of  a  route  by  the  States Assembly.

Undertaking detailed design for all 71 options would have provided neither value for money nor

Findings

Comments

be cost effective for the Government of Jersey and the taxpayer.

Now  that  the  States  Assembly  has  approved Option 7, design work is underway. A full impact assessment will be undertaken to consider how best to minimise the impact on green space, trees, children's  play  areas,  existing  car  parking, heritage and historical sites and this forms part of the Planning Application process.

4

There is  no indication where loss of leisure facilities and green space will be relocated.

The  report  appended  to  P.167/2020  was  an options appraisal to assess the relative viability and suitability of each option.

A full impact assessment will be undertaken to consider  how  best  to  minimise  the  impact  on green space, trees, children's play areas, existing legitimate car parking, heritage and historical sites and this will form part of the Planning Application process.

5

States  Members  will  not  have  the opportunity  to  approve  the  outline design prior to planning approval.

This  is  not  correct.   A  full  schedule  of engagements covered to date was provided to the Panel  in  December  2020. The  updated  draft communications  and  engagement  strategy documentation  was  provided  to  the Panel  was provide from POG on 23 February 2021 and a further updated draft on 16 March 2021.

The  Public  Engagement  &  Communications Strategy  was  published  on  the  ourhospital.je website together with a Consultation Feedback Form for members of the public to complete and submit.

There  was  considerable  engagement  with  key stakeholders during the options appraisal process, including  but  not  limited  to  the  Ambulance Service,  Fire  and  Rescue,  Planning,  the Infrastructure,  Housing  and  Environment department, and that engagement with these key stakeholders is ongoing.

Full public consultation is a requirement for the Planning  Application  process  and  will  be undertaken as part of that process, as is standard for major construction projects.

Findings

Comments

6

There  has  been  no  public/key stakeholder engagement undertaken by Government of Jersey at this stage of the project.

All key information that is necessary and available at this stage of the project has been provided. There appears to be an expectation of detail in the information in respect of the development of the preferred access option which would be neither appropriate nor available at the stage of the project when  a  wide  range  of  options  was  being appraised.

Therefore, I have instructed Officers to append a timeline to this response which will clarify when information will be available.

7

The  Panel  has  been  criticised  for delaying the project unnecessarily due to  requesting  additional  key information  which  appears  to  be missing.

All key information that is necessary and available at this stage of the project has been provided. There appears to be an expectation of detail in the information in respect of the development of the preferred access option which would be neither appropriate nor available at the stage of the project when  a  wide  range  of  options  was  being appraised.

Therefore, I have instructed Officers to append a timeline to this response which will clarify when information will be available.

8

The Panel understands there is a budget of £15.5 million within the overall costs of £550 million to undertake the work on  the  highways.  The  Panel  is concerned that if the design has not yet been finalised, cost could spiral as they are  not  fixed  to  a  specific  plan  or proposal.

The budget for the highways works was £15.3m (excluding  contingency)  based  on  a  10metre corridor for the road and allowances for active travel  corridors  and  verges.  This  has  been reviewed by the Design & Delivery Partners Cost Advisor and our own Cost Advisor to check that it is  reasonable and aligned with the scope  of works.

A Target Value Design process is being operated by the Design and Delivery Partner, its Designers and the Project Team, which is based on designing to the budget and identifying savings to offset any essential  design  changes  and  associated  cost increases that arise for the highways work during the design development phase.

A procurement route is being developed to most cost effectively buy the works, with the intention to use the existing on island supply chain as much as possible.

Findings

Comments

These measures will ensure the right price is paid for the road once it is designed but that doesn't mean it may not end up costing more than the original estimate. It does mean that costs won't spiral out of control.

9

There do not appear to be any plans in place  for  any potential  road  closures during construction.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be prepared to accompany the planning application, as  is  standard  for  major  construction  projects. This will set the traffic management proposals for the  construction  period.  Detailed  information including dates regarding road closures and how existing traffic movements will be rerouted will be finalised during the construction process.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The Council of Ministers should  ensure  that  full consideration  be provided  to  pursuing option  6,  "do  nothing option"  as  this  would reduce construction time, loss of green space, trees, children's  play  areas, existing  parking  spaces Jerseys  heritage  and historical  sites  and disruption  to  existing modes of access.

DCM

Accepted

This work forms part of the Planning Application process.

By Planning Application Submission at E on the timeline

2

The Council of Ministers should provide the States Assembly  with  an overview of why the do nothing' option, option 6 was disregarded when it scored  only  marginally lower than the preferred

DCM

Accepted

This information was included in the Report accompanying P.167/2020.

Completed

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

option.  This  should  be done without delay.

3

The Council of Ministers should provide the States Assembly  with  any additional  costs  for access  and  enabling works  the  contractor would have to undertake if the do nothing' option was  considered.  This should be done within 6 weeks of presentation of this report.

DCM

Rejected

Option 6 doesn't work. The final  design  for  the  access route will be costed including any  sections  of  the  route which are left untouched.

By Planning Application Submission at E on the timeline

4

The Council of Ministers should ensure any loss of leisure  facilities  and green  space  will  be relocated.  This  to  be provided  to  the  States Assembly  within  3 months of presentation of this report.

DCM

Accepted

This work forms part of the Planning Application process.

By Planning Application Submission at E on the timeline

5

The Council of Ministers should provide a copy of the  public/key stakeholder  engagement the  GoJ  plans  to undertake. This should be provided  without  delay and  publicised  on  the States  Website/social media.  This  should  be done without delay.

DCM

Accepted

This  had  already  been completed prior to receiving S.R.2/2021

Completed

6

The Council of Ministers should provide the States Assembly with details of how  the  cost  of  £15.5

DCM

Accepted

Outline information is provided in response to Finding 8 above. Details of the investment in the access

At lodging of the Finance Proposition and OBC at

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

million was arrived at for the  proposed  roadworks without  any  detailed design.  This  should  be done without delay.

route will be provided in the OBC.

B on the timeline

7

The Council of Ministers should provide the States Assembly with proposed plans  to  cope  with  any disruptive  road  closures during  the  construction phase.  This  should  be provided within 3 months of  presentation  of  this report.

DCM

Accepted

This will be included in the Traffic Management Plan and specific  road  closure  details will be available nearer to the start of works.

By Planning Application Submission at E and detail at G on the timeline

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

A comprehensive Transport Assessment and Travel Plan are produced.

DCM

Accepted

This forms part of the Planning Application process.

By Planning Application Submission at E on the timeline

2

Detailed discussions are quickly initiated with the Highway Authority and a scoping exercise carried out which informs the work required to submit a planning application. A three-stage approach to approval might be considered, namely:

•Approval in principle to  Option  7  as  the

DCM

Accepted

Discussions with the Highway Authority were already ongoing and will continue to inform the Planning Application.

By Planning Application Submission at E on the timeline

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

primary  route  for vehicular access

•Development  and agreement of a multi- modal access strategy to  the  new  hospital site.

•Production of a preliminary design and impact assessment based on the chosen route and access strategy.

Initiate  an  IPA  process (independent  Project Assurance)  for  the project moving forward as recommended by HM Treasury.

DCM

Accepted

Assurance currently in place includes:

NEC  Supervisor  –  Mott MacDonald

Project Management Office – Mace

Cost Consultant – Turner & Townsend

This  is  in  addition Government  departmental duties and Political Scrutiny

Appointment  of  an independent  project  advisor will be considered by POG.

Completed

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

May-21

Jun-21

Jul-21

Aug-21

Sep-21

Oct-21

Nov-21

Dec-21

Jan-21

Feb-21

Mar-21

Apr-21

May-21

Jun-21

Jul-21

Activity

Date Pre-construction Stage Activites

Hospital RIBA2 design completes

May-21

May-21

Highways RIBA3 completes

Jul-21

Jul-21

Jul-21

Jul-21

C

Agreement of OBC

Sep-21

Oct-21

Oct-21

Hospital RIBA3a (planning) design completes

Nov-21

Nov-21

Nov-21

Nov-21

Hospital RIBA3b design completes

Jun-22

Jun-22

Jun-22

G

Agreement of FBC

Jul-22